No Holidays abroad Allowed (1 Viewer)

[fat haggis]

Rules are meant to be broken.

Thats how people gained freedom and evolved.

That's how viruses gained control and killed all the humans.

 

[Sandancers]

Rules are meant to be broken.

Thats how people gained freedom and evolved.

Would that be a view held by a certain Nicola then ? I believe that lady was found to have done that very thing.

 

[Coolcats]

Would that be a view held by a certain Nicola then ? I believe that lady was found to have done that very thing.

Don’t think we should go down the politician road there is a long list guilty of that starting with the PM

 

[Sandancers]

Don’t think we should go down the politician road there is a long list guilty of that starting with the PM

Why did you think I meant the political rules that she broke ?

Check this out;

Scotland's first minister has apologised for breaching Covid rules by taking her face mask off at a wake.

However, if the cap fits.......................

 

[Northernraider]

That's how viruses gained control and killed all the humans.

Hmm but it hasnt ...its killed people who were mostly dying of something else.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Northernraider]

Would that be a view held by a certain Nicola then ? I believe that lady was found to have done that very thing.

It was a few held by the suffragettes , gays , blacks, etc etc etc.

Those that blindly follow rules are commonly reffered to as sheep.

P.s im not responding to the political crap as ive found a biased on here as to which comments end up being deleted.

What i will say is anyone daring to pile on 1 incident in Scottish politics while supporting that joke in Westminster needs to have a serious word with themselves.
The reason many scots are fed up with England is opinions like yours.

Better together my anus

Save the reply i wont see it.

 

[fat haggis]

Hmm but it hasnt ...its killed people who were mostly dying of something else.

Sorry mate I think your talking bullshit on this matter. Tell that to the young the very young who have died of Covid. Do you have kids ? As I know parents of children who have said ov Covid. Not the best thing to say to any grieving family

 

[Northernraider]

Sorry mate I think your talking bullshit on this matter. Tell that to the young the very young who have died of Covid. Do you have kids ? As I know parents of children who have said ov Covid. Not the best thing to say to any grieving family

You mean the 47 people under the age of 40 who have died out of the 120 whatever thousand?
All with underlying health issues.


The statistics speak for themselves

0.4% critical 96% mild

 

[AXO66]

Any idea what the figures would be without the rules?

Oh and maybe the number who would have died, from any cause, without any medical inputs as the hospitals were totally full.

 

[Northernraider]

Any idea what the figures would be without the rules?

Oh and maybe the number who would have died, from any cause, without any medical inputs as the hospitals were totally full.

Probably 10 or 100 times more

But the percentages would likely be the same

Its a crazy idea but id have had the elderly and most vulnerable stay at home if they chose and used all the money they spent furloughing etc to provide support for that group and then let the rest of society carry on and see how that worked for a while ....most countries figures show its mostly the over 70's and those with other health issues that are dying ...so isolate those and see if nature and immunity works with the rest .

I think its whats going to happen in the long run anyway as its here to stay and no way its ever going to be completely eradicated. They keep saying its going to be the last lockdown etc but i doubt it

Time will tell ...but im always going to question the actions from the start of this....and the longterm damage remains to be seen

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[EuroTrotters]

Probably 10 or 100 times more

But the percentages would likely be the same

Its a crazy idea but id have had the elderly and most vulnerable stay at home if they chose and used all the money they spent furloughing etc to provide support for that group and then let the rest of society carry on and see how that worked for a while ....most countries figures show its mostly the over 70's and those with other health issues that are dying ...so isolate those and see if nature and immunity works with the rest .

I think its whats going to happen in the long run anyway as its here to stay and no way its ever going to be completely eradicated. They keep saying its going to be the last lockdown etc but i doubt it

Time will tell ...but im always going to question the actions from the start of this....and the longterm damage remains to be seen

Very interesting view, I am with you on most of it.

 

[Northernraider]

Very interesting view, I am with you on most of it.

I just remember last march them saying if 20000 died we'd be lucky ...and they spoke then about herd Immunity .... people went nuts and too save popularity they backtracked ...now the figure is 6 or 7 times that despite lockdowns etc

The uk doesnt break the figures down as much as greece did

I guess if you are in that most vulnerable group your opinion changes but im not saying let old folk die im saying concentrate on keeping them isolated and let the group's that are far less at risk carry on .

If the vulnerable group is isolated then technically they would have been safe till vaccinated

But instead they yo yo'd with lockdown then freedom etc allowing more of that group to get infected.

Its pretty much where the uk is at now anyway ...going to start lifting restrictions whilst those under 50 are still not vaccinated and by recent vaccine shortages coming theres going to be delays in doing it .... But those most at risk have been vaccinated.

Could have saved 9 months had they just kept those at risk away from everyone else

 

[stewartwebr]

Hmm but it hasnt ...its killed people who were mostly dying of something else.

Can ask on what scientific data you base this on? Having spent the best part of a year leading an ICU it is certainly not what I have experienced.

 

[jongood]

Probably 10 or 100 times more

But the percentages would likely be the same

Its a crazy idea but id have had the elderly and most vulnerable stay at home if they chose and used all the money they spent furloughing etc to provide support for that group and then let the rest of society carry on and see how that worked for a while ....most countries figures show its mostly the over 70's and those with other health issues that are dying ...so isolate those and see if nature and immunity works with the rest .

I think its whats going to happen in the long run anyway as its here to stay and no way its ever going to be completely eradicated. They keep saying its going to be the last lockdown etc but i doubt it

Time will tell ...but im always going to question the actions from the start of this....and the longterm damage remains to be seen

I couldnt agree more, been saying it for almost year now. We will look back on this and wonder why on earth we destroyed our own economic and social structure for a virus that only had a measurable effect on <1% of the population.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting

Sun Tzu - funnily enough a Chinaman.

 

[AXO66]

Probably 10 or 100 times more

But the percentages would likely be the same

Its a crazy idea but id have had the elderly and most vulnerable stay at home if they chose and used all the money they spent furloughing etc to provide support for that group and then let the rest of society carry on and see how that worked for a while ....most countries figures show its mostly the over 70's and those with other health issues that are dying ...so isolate those and see if nature and immunity works with the rest .

I think its whats going to happen in the long run anyway as its here to stay and no way its ever going to be completely eradicated. They keep saying its going to be the last lockdown etc but i doubt it

Time will tell ...but im always going to question the actions from the start of this....and the longterm damage remains to be seen

The percentages could well have remained the same . However the resources of the NHS are finite and therefore might would have really struggled , in new territory , with a 10 fold increase .
A 100 fold increase would have or would be a very different picture entirely.
Would it have totally collapsed.?
The answer to that question was probably one of the key drivers to the whole lockdown policy.
Now a year on knowledge has moved on about treatment. Vaccine is a game changer .
Mutations , that render the vaccine ineffective , are the real threat . .
Then there is the issue of all the everyday NHS services that have been suspended leading to the record waiting lists .

The public inquiry when It happens will be very interesting.

It could well be that the very existence of the NHS has significantly contributed to the successful role out of the vaccines. It almost provides a central data base that links every persons, health, age and whereabouts along with geographic numbers in the UK. Leading to relatively easy strategic and local planning of the vaccination programme .

I suspect that is not readily available in most other countries .leading to difficulties in planning .

Third lockdown ? , depends on the success of the vaccine and mutations .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

You mean the 47 people under the age of 40 who have died out of the 120 whatever thousand?
All with underlying health issues.


The statistics speak for themselves

View attachment 476858

0.4% critical 96% mild

Can I ask what points are you making are you saying lock downs and vaccines are unnecessary?

 

[Coolcats]

I just remember last march them saying if 20000 died we'd be lucky ...and they spoke then about herd Immunity .... people went nuts and too save popularity they backtracked ...now the figure is 6 or 7 times that despite lockdowns etc

The uk doesnt break the figures down as much as greece did

I guess if you are in that most vulnerable group your opinion changes but im not saying let old folk die im saying concentrate on keeping them isolated and let the group's that are far less at risk carry on .

If the vulnerable group is isolated then technically they would have been safe till vaccinated

But instead they yo yo'd with lockdown then freedom etc allowing more of that group to get infected.

Its pretty much where the uk is at now anyway ...going to start lifting restrictions whilst those under 50 are still not vaccinated and by recent vaccine shortages coming theres going to be delays in doing it .... But those most at risk have been vaccinated.

Could have saved 9 months had they just kept those at risk away from everyone else

Those at risk have only had 1/2 of a vaccination

 

[MITHRANDIR]

I couldnt agree more, been saying it for almost year now. We will look back on this and wonder why on earth we destroyed our own economic and social structure for a virus that only had a measurable effect on <1% of the population.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting

Sun Tzu - funnily enough a Chinaman.

We may look back also in the years to come and watch scotland sail away from england, with Nicola Sturgeon at the helm, like her or not, she will be the one that leads the scots to an independent nation, i personally think she talks a lot of sense, and the criticism of her is unjustified and i'm an englishman.
Rest assured the vaccine rollout is fantastic, we have the Nhs to thank for that, we could also thank the government for having the forethought to order vaccines early, but little else.
The first lockdown, fine, 2nd was a joke, 3rd isn't much better, the Nhs has learned at least in part how to treat patients with covid much more effectively, these improvements are happening all the time and we should be grateful for that, which we are.
It begs the question, why, when we are in a much better place now regarding the virus, are such extreme measures put in place regarding travel?, there are groups allowed to travel, for houses, or elite sportspeople and their entourage, to name just a couple, if the ban on travel is meant, to protect us, does the virus not recognise sportspeople, or house buyers?
It is in my view unjustified, and is definitely against the universal declaration of human rights, states, "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own and return to his country".
Extraordinary, times, yes, but it concerns me when the ban states "indefinite" anywhere in the wording, as it should concern everyone else.

 

[kevenh]

Extraordinary, times, yes, but it concerns me when the ban states "indefinite" anywhere in the wording, as it should concern everyone else.

Not so easy to check on an iPad myself but is it at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents?view=plain where you saw the word “indefinite”?
The gov keeping COVID-19 restrictions on the books passed the end of that use would be poor.

 

[MITHRANDIR]

Not so easy to check on an iPad myself but is it at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents?view=plain where you saw the word “indefinite”?
The gov keeping COVID-19 restrictions on the books passed the end of that use would be poor.

Radio 4 this morning, if that's not accurate then i will retract, but the point remains the same

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[funflair]

We may look back also in the years to come and watch scotland sail away from england, with Nicola Sturgeon at the helm, like her or not, she will be the one that leads the scots to an independent nation, i personally think she talks a lot of sense, and the criticism of her is unjustified and i'm an englishman.
Rest assured the vaccine rollout is fantastic, we have the Nhs to thank for that, we could also thank the government for having the forethought to order vaccines early, but little else.
The first lockdown, fine, 2nd was a joke, 3rd isn't much better, the Nhs has learned at least in part how to treat patients with covid much more effectively, these improvements are happening all the time and we should be grateful for that, which we are.
It begs the question, why, when we are in a much better place now regarding the virus, are such extreme measures put in place regarding travel?, there are groups allowed to travel, for houses, or elite sportspeople and their entourage, to name just a couple, if the ban on travel is meant, to protect us, does the virus not recognise sportspeople, or house buyers?
It is in my view unjustified, and is definitely against the universal declaration of human rights, states, "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own and return to his country".
Extraordinary, times, yes, but it concerns me when the ban states "indefinite" anywhere in the wording, as it should concern everyone else.

Interesting read on the vaccine rollout, https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n421

 

[robnchris]

We may look back also in the years to come and watch scotland sail away from england, with Nicola Sturgeon at the helm, like her or not, she will be the one that leads the scots to an independent nation, i personally think she talks a lot of sense, and the criticism of her is unjustified and i'm an englishman.
Rest assured the vaccine rollout is fantastic, we have the Nhs to thank for that, we could also thank the government for having the forethought to order vaccines early, but little else.
The first lockdown, fine, 2nd was a joke, 3rd isn't much better, the Nhs has learned at least in part how to treat patients with covid much more effectively, these improvements are happening all the time and we should be grateful for that, which we are.
It begs the question, why, when we are in a much better place now regarding the virus, are such extreme measures put in place regarding travel?, there are groups allowed to travel, for houses, or elite sportspeople and their entourage, to name just a couple, if the ban on travel is meant, to protect us, does the virus not recognise sportspeople, or house buyers?
It is in my view unjustified, and is definitely against the universal declaration of human rights, states, "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own and return to his country".
Extraordinary, times, yes, but it concerns me when the ban states "indefinite" anywhere in the wording, as it should concern everyone else.

Just two points I would ask of your post, please note it's not criticism,

Point 1, How will Scotland make it as an independent nation, what will their economy be based on?

Point 2. Why does everyone have the right to leave any country? surely common sense and history tells us that people moving about especially in a world pandemic is the one sure way of spreading the virus.
I would use the spreading of Bubonic Plague in 1665 and the town of Eyam in Derbyshire as perfect example of why people should NOT be allowed to move around.

 

[funflair]

I couldnt agree more, been saying it for almost year now. We will look back on this and wonder why on earth we destroyed our own economic and social structure for a virus that only had a measurable effect on <1% of the population.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting

Sun Tzu - funnily enough a Chinaman.

But what would have happened to the hospitals and the NHS if we hadn't had the lockdown, many hit critical levels even with the measures in place.

 

[bigtwin]

It begs the question, why, when we are in a much better place now regarding the virus, are such extreme measures put in place regarding travel?, there are groups allowed to travel, for houses, or elite sportspeople and their entourage, to name just a couple, if the ban on travel is meant, to protect us, does the virus not recognise sportspeople, or house buyers?

No, the virus is indiscriminate but by limiting the number of people circulating the opportunities for spread are limited. It seems sensible to me to adopt a strategy that is graduated in terms of how many opportunities you present for spread of the virus.

Rightly, or wrongly, the activities (and exceptions) permitted are based on a judgment about what is beneficial to society as a whole. I‘m not that bothered about live sport but appreciate that news media is still able to function (as much as I deplore the quality of much of it).

Ian

 

[MITHRANDIR]

Just two points I would ask of your post, please note it's not criticism,

Point 1, How will Scotland make it as an independent nation, what will their economy be based on?

Point 2. Why does everyone have the right to leave any country? surely common sense and history tells us that people moving about especially in a world pandemic is the one sure way of spreading the virus.
I would use the spreading of Bubonic Plague in 1665 and the town of Eyam in Derbyshire as perfect example of why people should NOT be allowed to move around.

point 1, no idea, but there is a real danger of that happening in my view
point 2, law, uk signed up to this in 1958, i think,
If you are going to stop people moving around then it should be ALL the people, which it clearly isn't.
I get your point about eyam, but that was 1665, not 2021, eyam's people made the choice themselves, rightly.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MITHRANDIR]

No, the virus is indiscriminate but by limiting the number of people circulating the opportunities for spread are limited. It seems sensible to me to adopt a strategy that is graduated in terms of how many opportunities you present for spread of the virus.

Rightly, or wrongly, the activities (and exceptions) permitted are based on a judgment about what is beneficial to society as a whole. I‘m not that bothered about live sport but appreciate that news media is still able to function (as much as I deplore the quality of much of it).

Ian

I agree, but it does seem to be extreme, £5000 fine etc, don't you think?

 

[funflair]

I agree, but it does seem to be extreme, £5000 fine etc, don't you think?

Isn't that the point though to be a deterrent it has to be extreme at £50 most people would just pay it, at £500 some would at £5000 a lot less.

 

[Tykatem]

Pete

 

[The Wino]

Isn't that the point though to be a deterrent it has to be extreme at £50 most people would just pay it, at £500 some would at £5000 a lot less.

I think they've missed the point with a fine it would be just as much a deterrent to make the penalty confiscation of a passeport for 10 years and be a lot more even in its affect on people who are rich and poor.

 

[MITHRANDIR]

Isn't that the point though to be a deterrent it has to be extreme at £50 most people would just pay it, at £500 some would at £5000 a lot less.

Or you could just say to border control, don't allow them to leave?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}